Aquino v. Skyview Acquisitions, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:16-cv-00334
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Aquino v. Skyview, Judge Schofield denied the pro se plaintiffs’ Rule 60 application as untimely and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The order affected Darren Dione Aquino, Sihar Aquino, and Aza Derman, whose emergency Rule 60 application was denied as untimely.
What happened
In Aquino v. Skyview Acquisitions, LLC, Darren Dione Aquino, Sihar Aquino, and Aza Derman asked the court to set aside an earlier judgment. They alleged fraud, disability-rights and housing violations, and improper disclosure of sealed medical information.
The plaintiffs requested restoration of their tenancy, reinstatement of their civil claims, discovery about ownership and communications, sanctions or disciplinary referrals, damages, and other emergency relief. The order did not address whether those allegations were valid.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application because it was filed too late under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1). She directed the clerk to close the motion and mail the order to the pro se plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- Aquino v. Skyview Acquisitions, LLC · No. 1:16-cv-00334
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 21, 2025
Background
Darren Dione Aquino, Sihar Aquino, and Aza Derman, proceeding without lawyers, filed an emergency motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4), and (6). The motion sought relief from an earlier judgment in the case and requested immediate reinstatement of a tenancy, restoration of civil claims, and other relief.
The motion alleged that the plaintiffs had been forced from an apartment after 50 years of tenancy and after making disability-related requests. It also alleged that the real owner of the property had been concealed, that counsel had misrepresented the source of a settlement, and that sealed medical information had been disclosed to a new owner. The plaintiffs further alleged that they had been denied appointed counsel and had been unable to uncover the alleged fraud earlier.
Motion and Requested Relief
The plaintiffs asked the court to vacate the judgment, reinstate their tenancy and claims, compel disclosure of communications and ownership information, refer attorneys for disciplinary investigation, waive filing fees, issue emergency injunctive relief, award damages, and refer alleged violations involving sealed records and medical privacy to federal authorities.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application. The court stated that the motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1). The court did not make a ruling on the plaintiffs’ underlying allegations of fraud, disability-rights violations, housing violations, or disclosure of sealed information. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 90 and mail a copy of the order to the pro se plaintiffs.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.